These are just my personal go-to directions. They are far from being the only way to nip that acrostic in the bud, and everyone will have their own personal preferences.
TOTAL DEPRAVITY – If everyone is born blind, dead, dead in sin, with a hardened heart of stone… Then why does Jesus speak in parables so they cannot see or hear? Why does the Devil snatch away the word? Why does God harden already-hard hearts? The redundancy of it is what helped Dr. Flowers, Bobby Conway, Alana L out of Calvinism. It’s what helped keep Mike Winger from ever believing Calvinism. See attached Total Inability? meme.
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION – Go direct to the prooftextiest of Calvinist prooftexts, Romans 9. Take the ‘potter and vessels’ metaphor which Paul uses and read Jeremiah 18 which he references, where the response of nations changes God’s planned use for them. See attached Jeremiah/Romans meme. Biblical Election is conditional, corporate and regards roles of servive – it is not the unconditional election of individuals to salvation or damnation of Calvinism. As a kicker, read 2 Timothy 2:20-21 where Paul uses the vessel metaphor and tells us our behaviour is what determines our use as vessels.
LIMITED ATONEMENT – Funny how this petal took long after Calvin’s time to be developed by Beza and Owen as a necessary logical entailment of the system. There’s ample good reason why Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, 1/3 of Dort, 1/4 of Westminster, and modern Four Pointer Calvinists – not even to mention the overwhelming majority of nonCalvinists e.g. Arminians, Provisionists, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox – all don’t accept this doctrine which runs on Double Jeopardy and Negative Inference Fallacy. The three problems texts I like to raise which don’t rely on definitions of ‘All’ are in attached Limited Atonement manga meme.
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE – If totally depraved sinners need to be brought to new life before they can/will accept the Gospel, then why does Scripture repeatedly tell us that faith precedes regeneration? As per the attached Wojak meme, the conversation there is about Total Inability but it similarly applies to Irrestible Grace since the new life it is supposed to grant comes AFTER believing by faith.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS – Under TULIP, how do you explain apparent Christians falling into apparent apostasy? You can’t without the logical entailment which John Calvin invented, Evanescent Grace – see attached meme with his quote for what this is. Simply put, if God tricks people with temporary grace that is indistinguishable from ‘real’ Irresistible Grace, then NOBODY has any assurance of salvation – because if you’re sure you’re saved, that is exactly the condition which Calvin says the tricked Reprobates are in.
So James White recently released 2 hours of very cranky lambasting Septuagint Scholar Guy™ Dr Joel Korytko for misunderstanding the argument about aorist tense = false faith in the gospel of John. White says his point was never that the aorist ALWAYS indicates false faith in John, merely ALMOST always!
So fine, let’s take his word for it. Here are three quotes from his post-debate streams:
“Because when you don’t have the present being used in John, when he switches the aorist and slots in a pluperfect, in both those it’s false faith. And so I think you can make the argument at least in John.”
“If you’ve not done work on John 6 then maybe you don’t realize the fact that John uses the aorist when he’s talking about false faith, and that the present participles are emphasizing true faith.”
“I just have to point out, when I mentioned in passing during the debate the present tense participles. The one seeing, the one looking, the one believing, the one coming. When I pointed that out, that was one of the things that this Septuagint Scholar Guy took difference with. I guess he’d take difference with [unclear] too. Don’t know, but Reformed exegetes have recognized and emphasized the fact that in John saving faith is present tense, it’s ongoing, in contrast to aorist and pluperfect.”
Taken at face value, all three quotes could reasonably be interpreted as claiming “Aorist (and pluperfect) tense indicates false faith in John.” There are no statements of exception, disclaimer or conditionality in those quotes. It can easily be interpreted as ALWAYS indicating false faith.
However according to James White, he has clarified in other places that this is not his actual stance – he claims it is ALMOST ALWAYS an indication of false faith in John. That is not a hard rule, and it is a mispresentation to say White ever claimed such!
Hence, we learn from this example that: “A conclusion should not be drawn solely from an isolated sampling; proper understanding requires the fuller and wider context!” …No matter how open-and-shut case those isolated samples seem to be on their own.
OBJECT LESSON: What can we apply from the above object lesson to the #FlowersVSWhite debate 2024 on John 6?
“A conclusion should not be drawn solely from an isolated sampling; proper understanding requires the fuller and wider context!”
Which was the entire thrust of Flowers’ approach to the debate! White kept harping on John 6:44-45 and hounding Flowers to stick to only that short portion of text, while Flowers brought in the whole counsel of Scripture to help us understand Jesus’s words in John 6.
Are there any conditions stated in John 6:44-45? Do we break up the verse and slot in ‘free will’? As my other post demonstrates (link in comments), Scripture often implies conditionality even when it isn’t explicitly stated in the text.
So very well, Dr White. We accept your correction and thereby clarification on the three conditionless statements. But we also use it to undermine Dr White’s stance in the debate!
Hus and Luther were officially condemned a heretics, and by extension all Protestants.
Do you affirm believer’s baptism over infant baptism? Luther and Zwingli persecuted the Anabaptists for holding this belief.
Have you ever been accused of being a Pelagian, condemned by the Council of Orange? Do you believe God decrees evil as Calvin, White, Piper and many other Calvinists do – which is anathema according to the same Council of Orange?
Do you hold to Limited Atonement? You mean the teachings of Gottschalk of Orbais that were condemned as heretical at two councils? Limited Atonement which Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, 1/3 of Dort, 1/4 of Westminster and many other Reformed rejected?
What exact percentage admixture of God/man do you say Jesus Christ was composed of? Explain in careful and exact correct orthodoxy, or you’ll be exiled to the farthest corners of the world by the Imperial Church.
Go back even further, to when Jesus was condemned by the Jewish leaders for alleged blasphemy by claiming to be God – followed by the persecution of the first Christians for being part of the ‘sect of the Nazarenes’.
Many of us have been accused of heresy for all sorts of reasons. When do you think YOUR turn will come? Do you really think it will be never? Flip open a history book sometime.
So forgive me if I rather take my chances standing before God to explain why I DIDN’T persecute someone for ‘heresy’.
James White during the #FlowersVSWhite debate 2024 accused Leighton Flowers of the following:
“If we’re going to many of the ways around this text, try to insert a break in verse 44 to where you have people who are drawn by the Father, but then they have to do something… They have their Free Will actions or whatever else it might be. And those who are raised up at the last day become a different group? You cannot do that with the language.”
And:
“What has happened is, Dr Flowers has inserted an entire anthropology – not from Romans 1 – but an entire anthropology into verse 45, which grants to people the capacity to hear and learn; and therefore they follow the Father; and therefore they’re given to the Son.”
But is Flowers wrong in assuming (or presupposing, a word that came up a lot in the debate) that the people who are drawn have to do something else, not mentioned in John 6:44-45?
Well as mentioned from 11:00 onwards in this video:
There is another statement by Jesus that we can use to compare against Jon 6:44. It comes just a few verses earlier:
Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man SHALL give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. – John 6:27
Emphasis on SHALL, because that is the key point. Jesus seems to be making a certain statement, the text itself mentions no conditions or mere possibility. But read on further, and basically the entire crowd of people whom Jesus addresses – the same ones He says that He SHALL give the enduring meat – walk away from Jesus. They did not receive the meat. Clearly, there is an implicit condition that is not stated in that particular verse!
Isn’t that also what we see in John 6:44-45?
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I WILL raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they SHALL be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, COMETH unto me. – John 6:44-45?
A lot of statements of certainty in those verses, yes? But does that mean there are no implicit conditions? (This is aside from Flowers’ argument that v45 itself states the conditions for v44, everyone is drawn but only those who hear and learn (actively, not passively) will come to Jesus.
Oooooooh wait, I missed one non-certain word there: CAN. That implies mere possibility, not the certainty which is asserted by Irresistible Grace!
Anyway, for more implied conditions, look at many of the prophecies which are worded as if they are certainties with no options given (e.g. Keilah in 1 Sam 23; Hezekiah in 2 Kings 20; Nineveh in Jonah 3), but the actual results ended up different because of people’s responses to the warning.
NB: Forgive me for any imprecise or inaccurate descriptions in the following.
I’m going to make a prediction – it is not something I HOPE will happen, but something I FEAR will happen.
I predict that if Calvinists push hard enough against Open Theism (and Dynamic Omniscience) – if they draw a hard line in the sand and insist that all other believers choose a side – they will encounter serious, unintended consequences.
The line in the sand is this: Open Theism is formally declared anathema, heresy, a non-negotiable reason to break fellowship and exclude from the Kingdom Tent, not even fraternizing with this enemy will be tolerated. We already see a lot of this going on, but for an easily observable example, say that the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) formally declares that no leeway will be given to Open Theism. IIRC this was narrowly avoided in past dicussions.
The unintended consequence will be this: Calvinism will suffer the same fate it consigns Open Theism to.
The rationale is this: By forcing every Christian to denounce Open Theism, many of these churchgoers will realize they actually dislike and disagree with Calvinism even more. The mental block, politeness filter, gentleman’s agreement will fall off – or rather, will have been ripped off by Calvinism forcing the issue.
In fact I think we already see some of this in action. Open Theism seems to be growing, and I think the actions of Calvinists contribute to this.
I’ve often seen Calvinists push the dichotomy that either God knows the future, OR people have real free choices – pick one. Those Calvinists pick the former, reject the latter – “God foreknows because He predestines” etc. And I’ve seen the exact same dichotomy pushed by Open Theists, who pick the latter instead.
Meanwhile, many Calvinists try to force the false dilemma that it’s EITHER Calvinism, or else you must affirm Open Theism. It’s a boogeyman scare tactic similar to their “You think man can choose God? Are you a Pelagian?” canard. James White has said on multiple occassions that “The only consistent non-Calvinist is an Open Theist.”
But the more that Calvinists push on this “Either you’re with us, or else you must be one of those HERETICS” false dichotomy, the more Christians are pushed AWAY from Calvinism. And if they buy the Calvinist’s false dilemma, they think therefore must turn to ‘the only other option’ – that being Open Theism. The Calvinist’s own plot backfires and turns around to bite them.
We might not realize it in our little (and it IS comparatively little) Internet Theology communities, but I hazard to guess that among regular churchgoers… Calvinism’s claims come across as much WORSE than “God does not / cannot / chooses not to know the future”. To the “I used to be Arminian, but then I learnt the truth of how the Bible teaches the Doctrines of Grace” folk out there, think back to how jarring Calvinism first appeared to you. Dragged kicking and screaming and crying into it, like Sproul and Piper said.
Of all the many odiferous teachings of Calvinism, in my experience I have found that the most shocking, horrifying and unacceptable doctrine is simply this: That Christ DID NOT give His life to save everybody. If you force the average Bible believer to pick a poison, they will sooner swallow the one labeled THE FUTURE IS OPEN.
And the bad example set by Cage Stagers doesn’t help their fellow Calvinists. All other things being equal, a non-aligned Christian forced to pick a side would probably not be partial to the guys calling them Pelagian, synergist, worship pagan goddess free will, barely saved, heretic, think they can save themself, stealing God’s glory, just hate God’s sovereignty… The more Cage Stagers tighten their grip on people’s throats, the more will slip through TULIP’s fingers.
And so to loop back to the line in the sand, what will happen if Open Theism is held up to the spotlight and every Christian forced to denounce it? Some time after that, people will realize that they felt all along: “You know what, Calvinism is actually worse.” The mental barrier preventing outright breaking of fellowship will have crumbled, and massive divides will ensue. Disagreements and debates like Calvinism/Traditionalism in the SBC will devolve into full on splits and parting of ways. The gloves will have come off, and it will have been the Calvinist denouncement of Open Theism that pulled them off.
Sure, Open Theism calls into question God’s ability to know the future – but Calvinism calls into question God’s good character. Go look up hashtag #KeepOnSinnin if you want the most egregrious examples. As Leighton Flowers has compared before, it’s one thing to belittle someone’s ability (you can’t herd a room full of kids very well) – it’s a whole ‘nuther thing to insult their character (you’re a child abuser and enjoy it).
So to the Calvinists, go ahead and continue prodding and provoking everyone else on the Open Theism issue. Mock Leighton Flowers for his lambasting the push for Open Theists to be pushed out of the SBC. Just don’t complain if you get pushed off the cliff next, in the mad stampede you triggered. You will have opened the floodgates, but the waters rush both ways. Both ends of the pendulum swing will be swept away by the flood, one cast out after the other.
You only will have yourselves to blame… Or maybe, blame God since it would have been God’s secret will all along having been unchangeably decreed in eternity past, right?
Let this be a solemn warning, and not an unwitting prophecy. I hope that I myself will not fall victim to it, being very big tent when it comes to these matters.
The following are my opinions edited from live note-taking.
WHITE OPENING:
White talking about us moderns are too individualistic in our interpretation? You don’t say, rejectors of the corporate view of Romans 9?
His appeal to hermeneutics to interpret against Catholics, Unitarians is just a cheap pop appeal. It’s like when a WWE star says the name of the city, knowing everyone there will show affirmation.
How does proving that the Father draws result in Unconditional Election? White asserts several times throughout the debate that it is obvious, without explaining why.
I reckon it’s because if Total Depravity is presupposed, then everybody is equally worthless and unable to accept God. Hence the Father choosing some to draw must be unconditional, since there is no meaningful difference between anybody.
This is exactly what Flowers warns about presuppositions skewing whatever grammar or Greek is interpreted from the text.
FLOWERS OPENING:
Exegesis and Greek doesn’t override starting with a wrong presupposition.
Flowers is spot on. The Father draws sure, but WHERE IS THE UNCONDITIONAL?
Condemned by default VS by their fault, good mnemonic he will repeat several times.
Mentioning blinding those born already blind, what I call the Total Redundancy or Totaller Depravity problem.
Hahaha walking through the text, unity of the Father and the Son, he dares use White’s own spells against him!
Flowers is mentioning a lot of Calvinism’s touchpoints, I predict White will say he isn’t sticking to the text. But as some have noted, Flowers may have the bigger goal of putting a pebble in the shoe of Calvinists and fence-sitters on topics like blinding those born blind, faith precedes regeneration being the clear teaching of many passages, those who have no chance to receive Christ being condemned for that.
What he is doing is what Calvinists often do, mention other texts or Bible events briefly to bolster his thesis. It’s not quite a shotgun.
Baffling that Jesus marvels and weeps over those the united Godhead didn’t grant regeneration to.
WHITE REBUTTAL:
White asserts it, but doesn’t explain HOW it is obvious that if the Father draws then this is UNCONDITIONAL Election. Remember the title of the debate. The debate is NOT “Is John 6 teaching Total Inability”.
Backwards reading from v45 to v44? What verses? There are no verses in the original autograph. John didn’t suddenly stop between the ‘verses’. Forcing the text into two halves is to rip a tear in the middle of a flowing narrative, chopping it up into artificial parts. White himself says “Some people try to insert a break in v44” completely without any self-awareness or else without any consistency!
Documentary about sheep choosing Shepherd? Real sheep need to LEARN the voice of the shepherd, which supports Flowers’ view.
FLOWERS REBUTTAL:
Just because it’s emotional doesn’t mean it’s not true. Didn’t take the chance to say “Jesus wept” though, although he’s been referring to Jesus weeping over Jerusalem refusing to be gathered.
White talks like a dry ivory tower lecturer, Flowers preaches like an impassioned southerner.
Repeated, exegesis and Greek doesn’t override starting with a wrong presupposition.
Finally says, you say we don’t know why the Father gives to the Son, I say we do… NOT UNCONDITIONAL. I still feel he should have pressed and reminded more on this point, since it’s the debate title.
The bread of life is given to a crowd that includes those who won’t follow Jesus, not just to those who will be irresistibly drawn. This is similar to what John17apologetics mentioned in his video on John 6 hoping to give tips for this very debate, wonder if Flowers picked it up from there? I’ll post video link in comments below.
WHITE QUESTIONS ROUND 1
Flowers is very quick in response to White’s constant attempt at gotcha questions to cite a passage to explain his position. I think this is impressive to the churchgoer audience, giving Flowers an aura of Biblicalness. Honestly it felt like the teachers of the Law trying to trap Jesus with complicated questioning.
Smart to keep referring back to what White himself wrote or said, this is another of White’s old debate spells.
Flowers should have mentioned the meat thing tho.
Plain Common sense, student’s responsibilities to learn when teacher teaches.
FLOWERS QUESTIONS ROUND 1
Oof, quoting page 25 of White’s own book Drawn by the Father “When we come to him, when we believe on him, he becomes the source of our spiritual life”
But White dodges on whether people get life thru regeneration first
In White’s own exposition by default they are unable to believe
“I’ve given the answer” as a dodge, White’s usual tactic of not answering yes or no on a question where he knows a yes represents his views accurately but sounds horrible to the audience.
WHITE QUESTIONS ROUND 2
White keeps trying to pin Flowers to ONLY 6:44, Flowers keeps bringing in other passages especially from John to clarify the verse. White is the one who coined the phrase “We believe in Tota Scriptura”
What if v45 describes v44? Didn’t White opener scold for reading backwards???
FLOWERS QUESTIONS ROUND 2:
Flowers makes a good comparison to White’s own lectures and Jer 32:33, teaching does not equal the hearers choosing to learn
White dodges on the infant damnation of a Reprobate, appealing to the moderator that this is not on topic. This is classic James White, refusing to give a yes or no answer because the yes is accurate about his views but he knows how horrible it sounds to the audience. We saw this multiple times in the Craig vs White debate on Unbelievable on the question of whether Calvinism makes God the author of evil.
White also appeals to other passages, Jer 31 to explain 32.
White just contradicted himself, they have tremendous light and God has to harden them EVEN IF they are ignoring that light. So God is preventing them from doing something they wouldn’t do???
Capernaum vs Tyre Sidon, John17apologetics point about impossible to repent without drawing in addition to signs (see comment for link). Flowers presses on whether Jesus didn’t really mean it, but White throws a pointless jab at Middle Knowledge.
White quote, you believe because you’ve been made a new creation in Christ. White agrees yes.
2 Cor 5:17, John 6, 5:40 come drink eat to live flatly contradicts, but White does the usual Calvinist word dance around the Ordo Salutis.
White actually agrees, spiritually dead individuals need to be given spiritual life so that they can have true faith in Christ.
WHITE CLOSING:
Says he’s won because Flowers admitted that if White’s view is correct then John 6 is about effectual drawing, then asserts that he showed how his exegesis is the correct one. I still think that Unconditional Election does not clearly follow from that, Irresistible Grace would be closer and only indirectly supports Unconditional Election. Again I need to ask, what in the entire passage shows the unconditionality of the drawing? Just because the Father draws, says nothing of any conditions.
Asserts that he has been consistent in exegesis and allowing the text to speak, while Flowers has not.
FLOWERS CLOSING:
Pushes on infant damnation because that’s the entailment of Unconditional Election (remember, that’s the topic of the debate).
Oof, using White 1987 saying this is an inconceivable idea!
Keeps bringing it back to White having presuppositions. Listening and learning are active, not passive (at first he gets it reversed due to being flustered here).
Brings up again White’s Calvinistic reversal of people doing something before living, citing multiple instances from the Bible.
Both believe the Father gives people to the Son, White says because they were unilaterally picked while Flowers says they listened and learned and believed. This doesn’t affect the flow of text or Greek grammar.
Flowers is using the closing to put a huge pebble in the shoe of listeners, the sharp pokey rock of Unconditional Reprobation in Calvinism.
Question about responsibility, White tosses out a remark about not being chosen because we’re choice meats, but fair enough Flowers already started with that joke about taking White out for some Texas choice meats in the introduction way back at the start of the debate. uses the chance to refer to Sproul as a Calvinist who agrees with his own definition and recapping that Augustine introduced ideas 400 years late, citing more Calvinists (Boettner, Bavinck).
Good answer on God being frustrated over people’s choices, Calvinists paint it as God trying and failing but that projects their own system where God uses Irresistible Grace. White then says “In answer to the actual question”, which made me feel he’s insinuating Flowers didn’t answer the question… But then says the (real) question is whether God is shocked or stunned because He’s unaware of the future, which are both NOT ‘frustrated’. Those words imply initial surprise, frustrated does not.
The why preach Gospel question feels like a waste of time to me, having been commonly asked and answered of Calvinism. Maybe I’m just way too exposed to these issues, but maybe it could be a softball question tossed by a White supporter. Flowers takes the motivation back to love rather than Law command, persuading them like Paul – remember he was up until recently the Director of Evangelism for the Texas Baptists, whatever jokes about One String Banjo.
Common gotcha question, what is the difference (is he better) if one guy believes and another doesn’t. If you listen to Flowers you already know his response, it’s Calvinism which says we need to be choice meats, a new creation in order to believe in Jesus. Christ is the choice meat, the better quality one – cites several people the Bible calls righteous, based on their belief in Christ. White tries to divert it back to God’s choice rather than (the yucky, man-centered) individual’s choice.
Can’t God make it up to our choice? White again won’t simply agree on a simple statement, but diverts to the ‘real question’ being about what John 6 shows. Flowers smartly brings up the “Could God create a rock He CHOOSES not to move”, which lets the audience hear that Provisionism is not about limiting God’s sovereignty but rather WHAT the sovereign God wants to do.
Is John 6 conditional election? Flowers says it’s not conditioned on morality or nationality, but their listening and learning from the Father citing v64.
Can the Father draw all people but only give those who believe to the Son? White says it’s a sure thing and this gives us eternal security because it’s not up to us. Flowers once again brings in examples from the wider Bible in Cornelius, a Gentile who believed in YHWH and thus was given to Jesus.
Is Christian conversion a supernatural work of God, a miracle? Flowers says the Gospel is the inspired word of God, the inspiration of Scripture, the Incarnation, revelation and light as grace that comes before are supernatural. This is to debunk the caricature that Provisionism says we don’t need God to move first ala Pelagianism. White says he didn’t answer the question, focusing on the actual point of conversion – men are dead in sin so supernatural action is needed.
Is it not possible that John 6:45 is describing what happens on v44 so is chronologically first? White says it’s an explanation, all who are drawn are raised up and Flowers gave nothing on this. Flowers retorts that this is untrue and White is just getting talking points out there to be repeated on Twitter.
Tough question on if God has same salvific love for all, why create a world where He knows many will never hear the Gospel? (I note that Molinists, Open Theists, Universalists all have responses to this but Flowers is none of these.) Flowers says this is one of those things appeals to Romans 1, revelation of conscience so none is without excuse, read his book for and a MacArthur sermon from 1981 for more. White chooses to use slanderous wording, Provisionism detests and attacks God’s decree at every chance.
Does Jesus say all who are drawn by the Father come to Him, or all who come to Him are drawn by the Father? White says one is descriptive and another didactic, but drawing leads inevitably to coming. Portrays it as God’s sovereignty versus creatures allowing God to do things. Flowers instead uses his response time to rebutt the earlier claim that Provisionists hate God’s decree, they just think God decrees good and not all evils like child molestation – a clear jab the clip of White’s infamous claim that child grape (sic) is meaningless if God didn’t decree it.
Last question, why the 5000 who were fed didn’t follow Jesus? Easy one for Flowers to go into judicial hardening of already self-hardened Jews (not synergists in Romans 9) in order to bring about the Crucifixion and being redemption to the world. I would have added that Acts 2 shows thousands of such hardened Jews then came to believe. White just asks why Jesus didn’t use harsh language with Nicodemus, kind of a non sequitur (Jesus did use analogies which flew over his head, born from above which Nicodemus took as literal born again from his mother’s womb).
MY CONCLUSION:
Overall I got the impression that White wants to stick to John 6 only, while Flowers shows the whole counsel of Scripture to understand John 6.
While White can win technically the battle (again, I don’t think John 6 supports Unconditional Election and a much stronger case can be made for Irresistible Grace from it), Flowers gained much ground in the war by showing how Provisionism is strongly Biblically based and putting lots of sharp pebbles in the shoes of those affirming or flirting with Calvinism. He had an audience of thousands and far more in the online viewers who got to hear his views unfiltered through White’s caricature of what Flowers, Provisionism and nonCalvinism are all about.
So let that be my takeway, Flowers gambled on potentially losing this battle in order to win the larger war.
Note: This post is publicly viewable and therefore one-click shareable, so feel free to use it as a response to the usual culprits! We at MemeVangelists are here to serve the body of Christ! Edits, additions and upgrades may also be made, so check back regularly and feel free to make suggestions for improvements.
Yes, others have covered these texts before. But now I myself have gone through each text for myself, personally, and there is a difference in doing that as opposed to if I just ‘surrender my sensemaking’ to someone else to work through the passages. In fact, I encourage YOU to check each passage for yourself rather than take my word for it.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
The attached ‘shotgunning’ list of alleged prooftexts for the tenets of Calvinism has made the rounds often. Attempts like these are common in any systematic, as with just one easy press of the trigger they aim to overwhelm the recipient with what seems to be a great weight of evidence for their beliefs.
Conversely, to debunk the citation of each passage takes times & effort – or else the poster can condescendingly claim “Just just don’t believe the Bible”.
Well, here I am taking the time & effort to show how the context and actual text of each citation do not actually teach Calvinism. In some cases, it actually refutes or contradicts the system!
Often what happens is that the Calvinist will interpret a passage a certain way (e.g. Eph 2:1 ‘you were dead in sins’ = literal corpselike inability to respond), derive a philosophical lens from it (this includes being unable to positively respond to the Gospel, ergo Total Depravity) and then view other passages through this doctrinal lens (slaves to sin are dead corpses, they don’t even want to be free). You will see many times in the list of prooftexts that the same passages are reused for different petals of TULIP, showing how all the petals are intertwined.
From there, they will JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS in taking a passage and making it into a prooftext. Very often they will (wittingly or unwittingly) engage in a shell game whereby a passage that is tangentially related to their doctrines gets highly extrapolated – without justification in the text itself, but simply as a result of magnification via their doctrinal lens – into a prooftext for the specific doctrine.
For example, passages that speak of the sinfulness of people are extended to mean people will never accept God’s offer of salvation (Total Depravity); passages about God choosing for service are taken to be unconditional and to salvific status, even if there are specific conditions listed there! (Unconditional Election); passages about God saving people are assumed to be irrespective of their own wills (Irresistible Grace); passages about Christ saving certain groups are used to exclude other groups via Negative Inference Fallacy (Limited Atonement). The passages don’t actually say what the Calvinist assumes or argues they say.
Since this is the fastest way to remove an alleged prooftext from candidacy, I will put this clarification at the start of every explainer where it applies (which is almost every prooftext!). If this is highly redundant, that is intentional because it will remind and train you to resort to this as the first line of inquiry: “Does the passage actually state what you say it does?”
As you will see, suddenly that shotgun blast of dozens of prooftexts dwindles down to a handful of passages, a peashooter. It’s actually quite pitiful, sad and pathethic.
And when there is a dearth of unclear verses that can be disputed, our understanding should rather be informed by the majority of verses that are clear – and that is when the whole counsel of the Bible crushes Calvinism under its holy weight.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
TOTAL DEPRAVITY
This has been called the most important petal of TULIP, as both Calvinists and nonCalvinists recognize that the system stands or falls with it – its assumptions logically entail in the following petals, as you will see. Lose the T, and the ULIP are unneccesary.
The key point of the doctrine is not merely that that people are prone to sin (something every proper Christian affirms, e.g. Ancestral Sin), Total Depravity also says that sinners cannot or will not ever accept God’s free offer of salvation in the Gospel (as Living Christian puts it, it is basically a Singular Inability – they can do anything else but accept the Gospel!). Many of the prooftexts conflate the two by arguing that do accept the Gospel is itself a good work – but as Leighton Flowers often compares, try calling up your boss and telling him that you won’t come into the office because ‘acceptance = work’ and see how far that gets you!
Conversely, a slew of passages indicate that God is making a genuine offer to people to repent and be saved, which they really can accept. Since nothing is said about them not really being unable to respond positively, the Calvinist must hence infer and import into these cases that Total Depravity actually applies and the people actually cannot accept God’s offer unless first regenerated – the very definition of eisegesis. RC Sproul egregriously does this with the Prodigal Son, inserting that the son came to his senses ‘not by himself’ because Sproul’s doctrine insists that God must first make sinners come to their senses.
Conversely, a key dilemma for the doctrine is whenever something (other than their alleged own Depraved state) prevents people from believing and being saved. On the surface these may seem to support that God does not want certain people to be saved per Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement – but these examples actually disprove Total Depravity! For why need to redundantly blind those born already unable to see the light, or deceive those who already will never believe the truth? This redundancy helped lead people like Leighton Flowers, Alana L, Bobby Conway and Michael L Brown out of Calvinism. It helped prevent Mike Winger from adopting Calvinism during his deep dive into it. To this day, no satisfactory response has been given from Calvinists. And to cap it off, Luke 8:12 indicates that the people COULD have believed and be saved absent an additional outside interference.
Gen 2:17 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. Death does not necessarily equate to corpselike inability to respond or eternal damnation. In fact, Adam & Eve later don’t drop physically lifeless immediately, but rather are cast out of the Garden, which supports the view that metaphorical death is about separation.
John 3:6 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer.
John 8:34 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. In response to the common argument that slaves to sin means they cannot yearn for freedom, this honestly doesn’t seem to have any conception of how slaves in the real world feel; see the American Civil War or Exo 3:7-9. Being unable to free themselves does not mean they cannot accept a Saviour’s offer to emancipate them. Keeping consistent with the slave metaphor means that Christians should be unable to sin at all vis-a-vis Rom 6:2,11!
Gen 6:5 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. Hyperbole, three verses later in v9 Noah is called righteous.
Rom 1:18-32 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. These are people whose thinking becamse futile and hearts became darkened when they denied God (v21,28,32), not that they were born with deluded minds and stony-dead hearts. This is an example of judicial hardening, God punishing their freely chosen rebellion by giving them exactly what they want, self-rule unto decadent self-destruction.
Jer 17:9 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer.
Isa 64:6-7 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. Poetic hyperbole, saying that no one calls on God’s name yet immediately after invokes YHWH for mercy which directly contradicts the claims of Total Depravity.
Rom 3:23 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. Poetic hyperbole (read the next verses where throats are graves and there’s snake venom under their lips), speaks of everyone having sinned which is not the point of contention. Note Psalm 14 is the citation, they have become corrupt (not were born that way) and contrasts them with THE RIGHTEOUS people of God. The following verses in Rom 3 hence likewise do not teach Total Depravity. And immediately after saying ‘no one’ is righteous, Paul say Abraham was credited as righteous in Rom 4:3.
Rom 8:7-8 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. Enemies who are hostile does not mean they cannot accept reconciliation; submitting to the Law (a whole slew of rules and righteous living) is not the same as accepting that one cannot do so and therefore needs Christ’s free offer to fulfill it on our behalf. Pleasing God in this context is fulfilling the whole Law, not about making God happy in a few instances such as accepting Christ (many unbelievers did things which God approved of).
Isa 65:12 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. The passage is about those who reject God and thus invite judgment.
Tit 1:15 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer.
Jer 13:23 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. Note that the people mentioned are ACCUSTOMED to doing evil, not from birth.
Rom 5:12 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. At best teaches Ancestral Sin. In fact the verse states does not state that SIN spread to all men which is what the Calvinist doctrine of Adam’s Impited Guilt teaches (doomed from the womb, born already damned because of what Adam did), but that DEATH spread to all men which is a self-evident fact since every human is physically mortal.
Rom 5:14-19 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. At best teaches Ancestral Sin. In fact, vv18-19 states that while ALL are condemned (to physical death) but only MANY are made sinners, which contradicts Adam’s Imputed Guilt spreading to all humanity and instead supports Age of Accountability. Furthermore, parellel justification and life for all men (refuting Limited Atonement) but only many are made righteous (those who accept Christ’s offer).
Eph 2:1-5 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. Metaphorical usage of ‘dead’ does not indicate literal corpselike inability to respond, but separation. See how the metaphorically dead can awake, arise, return to the Father, and do other things in Eph 5:4, Rev 3:1-2, Luke 15’s Prodigal Son, Luke 9:60, John 5:25.
Mark 7:21-23 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer.
Psa 14:2-3 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. As the entry on Rom 3:23 noted, they have become (not were born) corrupt and read on further to where the Psalm mentions the RIGHTEOUS people of God. Honestly, it is a true stereotype that Calvinists have a serious problem with context and reading even a little bit before and after a prooftext!
Mat 7:17-18 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. That people are likened to trees is not meant to teach that we are unchangeably bound to our fates like the genetics of plants, it is speaking about how outside observers can tell what the insides contain.
Psa 58:3 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. Poetic hyperbole, not didactic. Contradicts other passages on the alleged timing Total Depravity takes effect, even in this single verse two different timings separated by 9 months are mentioned.
John 3:19 – At last, a passage that could legitimately be interpreted as teaching that people reject God’s offer due to their preferring evil! But do people start out that way (as per Total Depravity), or do they gradually grow accustomed to evil and hardened as many passages indicate? This verse does not say, it only gives the current state of those who are rejecting God. It takes roping in other alleged prooftexts to complete the doctrine of Total Depravity.
1 Cor 2:14 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. This is about problematic believers (see the issues they have in chapter 1) not seeking to further their understanding about the deeper things of God (read on to 3:1-3), not unbelievers being Totally Unable to grasp the bare basic Gospel offer. Parallel 2:14’s natural person with 3:1-3’s people of flesh.
Prov 14:12 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. Poetic hyperbole, not didactic. Death does not necessarily equate to corpselike inability to respond or eternal damnation.
1 Cor 1:18 – The only other passage that could legitimately be interpreted as teaching that people reject God’s offer due to their preferring evil! Again this verse does not state what Total Depravity claims, i.e. that people start out already evil.
Col 2:13 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. In fact, read one verse prior where it says that THROUGH FAITH we are raised, the reverse order of Regeneration Precedes Faith.
Job 15:14-16 – Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. Note also that the speaker Eliphaz is rebuked by God for not speaking rightly of God (42:7).
Psa 51:5 – Not listed in the image, but is commonly used so I’ll just address it too. Does not state that sinners cannot accept God’s offer. It is poetic hyperbole not didactic, some interpret it as describing David’s mother (look carefully at how it is worded), avoid Faulty Generalization, and the timing of the alleged Total Depravity taking effect contradicts other timings as mentioned above.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION
If Total Depravity is true, then nobody would ever accept God’s offer of salvation. Hence God must unilaterally make people accept salvation, and if He doesn’t do it for everyone then whom God chooses must be unconditional (because everyone is exactly the same when it comes to the possibility of repenting, namely 0% chance).
Whereas, a proper contextual reading of alleged Unconditional Election ‘predestined, chosen’ prooftexts will show that HOW a person comes to believe is not stated. We agree that God has the prerogative to choose; the question is, HOW does he sovereignly decide to choose, and for WHAT purpose? And as you shall see, NONE of the alleged prooftexts unequivocally mention anything about being unconditional – many of them actually include clear conditions! Once again it takes assumptions, presuppositions and eisegesis about Total Depravity to make the texts mean what the Calvinist wants them to mean.
Election/choosing is actually about service more than salvation, it is conditional and corporate and can be changed. The term ‘elect’ is actually synonymous with the Jewish people and this makes much more contextual sense such as in passages such as Matt 24:24 (the elect being deceived by false messiahs, exactly what current Rabbinic Jews are looking for to rebuild the Temple) and 2 Tim 2:10 (the elect MAY be saved, not a certainty) than the definition of ‘those unchangeably saved from eternity past’.
Rom 9:15-16 – Does not actually state unconditional; even if human desire and effort are mentioned, this is not an exhaustive list of all conditions. Agreed that the plan of salvation is according to what God wants, but the real question is WHAT does God want? We contend that God wants all to be saved via freely accepting His offer of salvation. Note also v15 is quoting from Exo 33:19, where Moses is interceding for the rebellious Israelites – not one adult of whom entered the Promised Land (except Joshua & Caleb), and who are used as warning NOT to be rebellious in Heb 3:7-11.
Eph 1:9-12 – Does not actually state unconditional or strictly salvation. This entire chapter speaks of believers in Christ being predestined to undergo a process and reach an end destination that has already been decided, it has been pre-destined. It says nothing about HOW a person becomes a believer and joins this process. Note also how the citation cuts off before v13, which clarifies ‘You also’ believed later on (Christians in general) as opposed to ‘us in him’ of v4 (the Apostles specially called to service).
Rom 9:11 – Does not strictly state unconditional or salvation, as God’s choosing was before (not regardless) of Jacob & Esau’s actions which can fit a foreknowledge view. Does not state that this election is to individual salvation/damnation, v12 clarifies that this is about serving. v13 quotes Malachi 1:2-3 which is about the nations of Israel & Edom, and Esau the individual never served Jacob the individual, however Edom did serve Israel the nation as per v12.
John 1:12-13 – Does not actually state unconditional, what is listed is not an exhaustive list of all conditions. Agreed that the plan of salvation is according to God’s plan & criteria, not genetic lineage (blood, will of the flesh) or legal adoption (will of man). This is not about free will vs God’s will, otherwise blood being mentioned is superfluous as blood has no will. Just look up even the Wikipedia article on John 1:13 which lists commentary by several early church fathers – including Augustine. This is how they divide and contrast the passage.
Mark 13:20 – Does not actually state unconditional or salvation. The citation mentions survival, not salvation. The context of the passage is Jerusalem & Judea in the end times. Elect means the Jewish people, not those unchangeably saved from eternity past. This makes much more plain sense of v22 where ‘even the elect’ can be deceived by false messiahs, a very real possibility with many Jewish people rejecting Jesus for not reestablishing the physical kingdom of Israel in peace, and thus looking for the ‘real messiah’ who will rebuild the Temple (as stated by Rabbi Daniel Freitag in his debate against Michael L Brown).
Rev 13:8 – Does not actually state unconditional. From the foundation of the earth just means from the start of world history, see next entry. The passage states that those who don’t worship Christ will end up worshiping the end times beast.
Rev 17:8 – Does not actually state unconditional. The ESV translates this as ‘before’ the foundation of the earth, which is unjustified when the Greek word is elsewhere translated ‘from’, including in Rev 13:8 above. Names are added to the book of life starting from the beginning of human history (when people put their faith in God), not before Creation in eternity past.
Rom 10:20 – Does not actually state unconditional. Both the context of Romans 10 and the citation of Isaiah 65:1 are contrasting Jews (who wrongly think their works of Law save them) and Gentiles (who are saved by faith), the Isaiah verse even states ‘nation’. The whole running theme of Romans is on this topic, it does not suddenly switch to ‘unconditional election of individuals to salvation/damnation’ in Roman 9 and then switch back.
1 Cor 1:27-28 – Does not actually state unconditional. I mean, seriously! Look at all the adjectives used in this citation about God choosing the things opposite of human standards, what exactly looks ‘unconditional’ here?
2 Tim 1:8 – Does not actually state unconditional, works is not an exhaustive catch-all for all conditions. Probably a typo, if they mean 1:9 then it does not state that we are saved before the ages began but that our calling was given, the same theme as Eph 1 where what is predestined is the process for those who are in Christ.
John 10:26-30 – Does not actually state unconditional. Sheep in real life are not born already knowing the shepherd’s voice, they must learn it just as John 6:45 clarifies about whom God draws. Sheep is a metaphor for those who follow, if the people don’t follow Jesus in the first place then of course they will not believe Him.
John 10:15-16 – Does not actually state unconditional. It does not state why Jesus will bring other sheep, whether it is conditional or not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
John 6:37,44 – Does not actually state unconditional. Also commonly used prooftext for Irresistible Grace via the ‘drawing’ of v44. Read the context such in v45, ‘those who have heard and learned’ are CONDITIONS of whom God draws and gives to Christ. In the preceding John 5:46-47, Jesus states that those who believed Moses (the Old Testament writings) would recognize Jesus is the promised Messiah and thus believe Him. As Steve Gregg says this is not speaking about the Father taking the devil’s people and converting them into God’s people, it is taking people who follow the Father (Jewish believers in the Old Covenant) and transitioning them to the Son (the New Covenant).
Rom 8:29-30 – Does not actually state unconditional or strictly salvation. Again, what is predestined is the process, not how one comes to believe in the first place. Also, who are ‘those whom God foreknew’? Read Romans 11:1-2 for the context, it is the Old Testament believers. This explains why Paul suddenly switches from future tense to past tense just for this portion, glory is always future including earlier on at 8:18,21 but the preceding generations already have died and thus reached their glory stage. Foreknew (proginosko) just means ‘knew, past tense’, it is not about some mystical future-sight, in many cases (Acts 26:5, 2 Peter 3:17) regular humans do it. Romans 8:29-30 is rather about Paul citing the already fulfilled promises of God to the Old Testament believers, using them as an object lesson that God will also surely keep His promises stated in 8:28.
Isa 43:20-21 – Does not actually state unconditional or salvation. Read the chapter from the start, it is all about Israel as God’s chosen. Count how many times Israel and the synonym Jacob are mentioned. Compare v21’s ‘people formed’ with v1’s ‘formed you, O Israel’. While you’re at it, might as well head over to passages such as Isa 44:1, Isa 45:4, 1 Chron 16:13 where Israel is paralled with its synonym Jacob, while at the same time chosen is paralleled with its synonym servant/service (not saved/salvation).
Titus 1:1 – Does not actually state unconditional.
Psa 65:4 – Does not actually state unconditional.
Matt 22:14 – Does not actually state unconditional. Again, this parable is full of conditions such as responding to the invitation and wearing a wedding garment! Do Calvinists honestly expect the reader to not even check the context? (Sadly, the answer in many cases is: yes.)
2 Tim 2:10 – Does not actually state unconditional. Actually debunks Calvinism, since taking ‘elect’ to mean ‘unchangeably chosen for salvation’ makes nonsense out of Paul’s words. There is no ‘may’ possibility or probability with Unconditional Election, it is a 100% guaranteed certainty! Elect refers to the Jewish people, and you can immediately how it makes much more sense with Paul pining for his race to come to Christ.
Exo 33:19 – Does not actually state unconditional. See also the response to Rom 9:15-16 which cites this passage.
Deut 7:6-7 – Does not actually state unconditional or salvation, not being numerous is just one single condition. And this is clearly about the nation of Israel, a corporate group not individuals. And how many of them rebelled against YHWH? Election is not about salvific status but service roles.
Acts 13:48 – Does not actually state unconditional. Read the context of the event, the Gentiles who are there willingly came to hear Paul speak after either hearing him in the synagogue the preceding time (i.e. they were already followers of YHWH, see the entry on John 6:37,44) or accepted the invitation of the former to come hear Paul’s message. Appointed can also be legitimately translated ‘disposed’ as in the Gentiles were inclined to seek and accept eternal life, the Greek does not indicate that God did the appointing, and the context of the event fits this meaning.
1 Pet 2:8 – Does not actually state unconditional. What is actually predestined here, the people’s disobedience? Or is it rather that stumbling occurs if people disobey, just as in the natural world where if you trip on a rock you will fall due to gravity?
John 6:39 – Does not actually state unconditional. More of an Eternal Security passage than anything, actually.
John 17:2 – Does not actually state unconditional.
Rom 11:5-7 – Does not actually state unconditional, works is not a comprehensive list of all conditions especially since it refers to ‘works of the Law’ and not ‘any action whatsoever’, avoid Equivocation Fallacy. Since you’re here, read v11 and v23 which have Paul interpret Paul and completely debunk the use of Romans 9:19-23 as teaching Unconditional Reprobation to Damnation.
Romans 9:19-23 – Not listed in the image, but is commonly used so I’ll just address it too. Does not actually state unconditional or strictly salvation. Vessels are used for a purpose, compare ‘vessels for destruction’ with the ‘bowls of wrath poured out’ in Rev 16:1, the vessels carry and disburse the contents. Very importantly, see the potter and clay vessels reference in Jeremiah 18 and Paul’s other use of this analogy in 2 Tim 2:20-21. Vessels are for carrying out a purpose and CAN CHANGE THEIR USAGE AND OUTCOME by their responses! The analogy is not meant to convey that we have no agency like literal inanimate objects!
John 15:16 – Not listed in the image, but is commonly used so I’ll just address it too. Does not actually state unconditional or salvation. The verse itself states what they were chosen to do. In context, Jesus is referring to the Disciples and not every believer in general.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
LIMITED ATONEMENT
If the other petals of TUIP are true, then why isn’t everybody saved? After all, under Calvinism God does all the saving and preserving Himself. God is sovereign, and if God wants everyone without exception to be saved then who can possibly stop Him? If Christ died for someone, how can His saving power be thwarted? And yet, the plain fact seen in the Bible and in everyday life is that not everyone accepts Christ!
Ergo, God must NOT want everybody to be saved! Christ did NOT die for everyone, but only the Elect! God prefers billions to be damned to eternal hell when He could easily save them – remember, human free will is not a hurdle since God uses Irresistible Grace anyway!
When put that way, no wonder that out of all the bizarre claims of Calvinism, in my experience the most shocking to regular churchgoers is simply “Jesus didn’t die to save everyone, only some.”
This somewhat explains why Augustine and many Reformers and Calvinists did not affirm Limited Atonement, according to David Allen this includes: Luther, Zwingli, Calvin himself, a slew of other names, 1/3 of the attendees at Dort, 1/4 of the attendees at Westminster, and all modern Four Pointers or Amyraldians. It took Beza and Owens some time afterwards to popularize Limited Atonement as a necessary explanation for why TUIP doesn’t result in Universalism – God simply does not want most people to be saved.
The doctrine of Limited Atonement then needs to be propped up in any way possible – very much less so by the Bible, as has been said it is a doctrine in search of Scriptural support. This is probably why so many of the prooftexts listed are already used for the other petals, when in reality the passages do not even actually mention for whom Christ died for.
As you will see, most of the prooftexts run on the Negative Inference Fallacy – because item A is included, therefore not-A must be excluded! The faultiness of this assumption is easily demonstrated by purporting “Joe loves his sons” must mean he does not love his daughters. Or hey, just go to Galatians 2:20 where Christ died for Paul, so that must mean Christ didn’t die for anyone else amirite???
Otherwise, they conflate the intent & extent of the Atonement with the application of the Atonement, “Muh everyone limits the Atonement in some way”. Limited Atonement says Christ didn’t even intend to cover those who won’t accept, His death on the cross was never extended to everyone for their acceptance or rejection. Unlimited Atonement says Christ wants to and did cover even those who won’t accept, but it won’t apply unless they accept His terms. The difference is between a bad faith versus good faith invitation, a stingy versus exceedingly generous offer.
The other arguments for Limited Atonement use arguments from logic such as the Double Jeopardy Argument – fitting for a doctrine that was thought up as part of the logical entailments of TUIP. There are many ways of addressing this canard, such as by pointing out how it limits (pun intended) the aspects of the Atonement to only the Penal Substitution or transactional, while ignoring the loyalty requirement. But let me sink that attempt straight off by pointing you to Matthew 18:21-35, the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant – in Jesus’s own words, the debt that was first forgiven can then be reinstated.
John 3:16-18 – I have no idea why they would lead off with the ‘stereotype Arminian text, whosoever, whole world’. Maybe the want to argue that since only those who believe are saved, this therefore limits the application of the Atonement, “Muh everyone limits the Atonement in soem way”. But Limited Atonement is about the intent & extent, not the application.
Rom 8:30 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for. You can read more at the entry for Rom 8:29-30 under Unconditional Election.
John 6:35-40 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for. Usually more used for Unconditional Election or Irresistible Grace, you can see the entries for John 6 there.
Matt 1:21 – Conflates the intent & extent of the Atonement with the application of the Atonement. Christ will save His people from their sins, this does not mean that Christ intended to give His life for ONLY those who will be His people.
John 10:11 – Commits Negative Inference Fallacy. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep, but does this mean for nobody else?
John 17:9 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for. In v9 Jesus prays not for the world, but read on to v20-21 where Jesus then prays that the world may believe. And in world here means everyone and not just the Elect, surely world in John 3:16 also means everyone right?
Acts 20:28 – Commits Negative Inference Fallacy. God obtained the church by His blood, but does this mean He obtained nothing else? Note that the whole of Creation is redeemed by the cross, and all the spiritual powers of darkness are trampled and shamed.
Rev 5:9 – At most can be used to argue that ‘all means all types of peoples, all without distinction’ which does not in itself discount ‘all without exception’.
John 10:14-16 – Commits Negative Inference Fallacy. Again, the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep, but does this mean for nobody else?
Eph 1:4 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for. Usually used more for Unconditional Election, see the entry for Eph 1:9-12 under there for who was chosen and for what purpose (it isn’t salvation).
Isaiah 53:8,11-12 – Commits Negative Inference Fallacy. The Servant is stricken for the transgression of God’s people, but does this mean nobody else? vv11-12 mention that ‘many’ benefit from this sacrifice, but as even John Calvin’s commentary on Isaiah 53:12 states “It is evident from other passages, and especially from the fifth chapter of Romans, that many sometimes denotes all”. And even if only those who accept the terms benefit, remember not to conflate the intent & extent of the Atonement with the application of the Atonement.
Eph 2:1-5 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for.
Eph 2:8 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for.
John 5:21,24 – Conflates the intent & extent of the Atonement with the application of the Atonement. Who IS the Son pleased to give life to? Those who believe in Him, but this does not mean that Christ intended to give His life for ONLY those who will believe in Him.
John 10:26-27 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for. See entry for John 10:26-30 under Unconditional Election for more about who these sheep are.
John 12:37-40 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for. This passage actually debunks Total Depravity, as mentioned in the introduction to that petal it creates a redundancy problem – why use parables to blind those born already unable to see the Gospel?
Psalm 85:2 – Conflates the intent & extent of the Atonement with the application of the Atonement. God forgives the iniquity and sins of His people, but this does not mean that Christ intended to give His life for ONLY those who will be His people.
John 14:21-24 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for. Jesus manifested Himself to only the Disciples but not the world, AT THAT TIME – He had not yet been crucified and risen. And note that Judas is the one who makes that statement! As even Augustine says, The Lord redeemed Judas at a price that Judas did not know.
John 17:2,9-10 – Another repetition in v9 which was covered above. They’re really stretching to fill in those empty slots!
Acts 10:40-41 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for. Christ appeared only to those God chose as witnesses AT THAT TIME, it is clear from other passages (e.g. 1 Cor 15:5-8) that Christ then appeared to many others.
Acts 13:48 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for. Usually more used for Unconditional Election or Irresistible Grace, see this same passage under those sections for more.
Acts 15:14 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for.
Rom 11:7 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for.
Titus 2:14 – Does not actually state for whom Christ died for.
Heb 7:25-27 – Conflates the intent & extent of the Atonement with the application of the Atonement. The Spirit intercedes for the saints, but this does not mean that Christ intended to give His life for ONLY those who will be His saints.
Matt 26:28 – Commits Negative Inference Fallacy. The Servant is stricken for the transgression of God’s people, but does this mean nobody else? vv11-12 mention that ‘many’ benefit from this sacrifice, but as even John Calvin’s commentary on Mark 14:24 (a parallel to Matthew 26:28) states “By the word many he means not a part of the world only, but the whole human race”. And even if only those who accept the terms benefit, remember not to conflate the intent & extent of the Atonement with the application of the Atonement.
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
IRRESISTIBLE GRACE
If Total Depravity is true, then nobody would ever accept God’s offer of salvation because they love evil and hate God too much. How then can anybody be saved? God must miraculously overcome their evil nature by changing their desires – since they would naturally resist God due to being sooooo evil, God’s grace to change them must therefore be irresistible.
Since they are born dead in sin like literal corpses unable to respond, they must be first regenerated unto new life and then they will have the ability to confess Christ as lord & saviour (hence, Regeneration Precedes Faith – the axiom of Calvinism according to many including Sproul and White). Since they are stone hearted, they must first have it replaced by a new heart of flesh and then they will want God. Since they are unable to even understand the bare basic Gospel offer, their mind must first be renewed so they can grasp and accept the truth of God. And you can once again witness how lenses tinted by Total Depravity cause a slew of passages to be interpreted in a skewed manner.
As you will see, the majority of the alleged prooftexts merely state that God does a work in people – but does NOT state that this work is irresistible. Other prooftexts do not actually state that regeneration, new life or the Holy Spirit come first AND THEN they believe – conversely, many passages state the exact opposite, that Faith Precedes Regeneration.
John 3:3-8 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject being born again before faith (i.e. presumes Regeneration Precedes Faith). Conflates ‘see the kingdom’ and ‘enter the kingdom’ with believing by faith in the Gospel, compare Matthew 7:21-23 where entering the kingdom is ‘on that day’ which basically always refers to the Day of Judgment, it is a synonym for final salvation. (Tangential note: Matthew 7:21-23 is not about worrying whether you are really saved, scroll back to v15 and it’s clear the warning is about false prophets, those who use Christ’s name to prey on victims; their fake excuses won’t save them from Jesus’ condemnation.)
Eph 2:1-10 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject being brought from death in sin to life in Christ (i.e. presumes Regeneration Precedes Faith). See the entry in Total Depravity for Eph 2:1-5 which explains what ‘dead’ means here, it is not about being a corpse which cannot respond and hence any grace must be enacted on them irresistibly.
John 6:37 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. See the entry in Unconditional Election for John 6:37,44 to know who gets drawn, the Father is not giving to the Son what is the Devil’s.
John 6:44 – Yes, this same verse was combined with v37 in the Unconditional Election list. Here they are split up. Perhaps there weren’t enough prooftexts for Irresistible Grace available, so they needed to pad the image?
John 10:16 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. What does the analogy to sheep intend to convey? It is not that humans have no agency or ability to change like animals! See the entry in Unconditional Election for John 6:37,44 which touches on this same point. And are real sheep born already knowing the shepherd’s voice, or do they need to learn it as John 6:45 relates?
Psa 65:4 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. The context actually indicates this is about believers in YHWH.
Eze 36:26-27 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. Compare Eze 18:30-32 where God tells them to make themselves a new heart and a new spirit. Also in context, this message is to Israel who will be brought back to the land.
John 1:12-13 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. More of an Election prooftext, but see the entry in Unconditional Election for more.
Rom 9:15-16 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject.
John 5:21 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. As already mentioned in the entry for this under Limited Atonement, who IS the Son pleased to give life to? Those who believe in Him.
Rom 11:5-6 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. Romans 11 is all about the Jews (NB: as mentioned under Unconditional Election, almost always elect/chosen refers to the Jewish people) who can be grafted back into Christ if they stop rejecting Him. The works here and in other places where it is contrasted with grace refers to the works of the Law, i.e. keeping the Mosaic code.
Rom 8:30 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. Recall how I just mentioned that Romans 11 is about the Jews? Well Romans 11:1-2 explains who ‘those whom God foreknew’ are, it is the Old Testament faithful. See the entry for Rom 8:29-30 under Unconditional Election for more.
John 6:39,65 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. Those drawn here are already followers of God, see John 6:37,44 under Unconditional Election for more on this. Why does v65 say ‘can come’ if it is Irresistible? It should say ‘will surely come’.
Heb 9:15 – Does not actually state irresistibly.
Phil 1:6,29 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. More of an Eternal Security passage than anything, actually.
Phil 2:13 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. More of an Eternal Security passage than anything, actually.
2 Tim 1:9-10 – Does not actually state irresistibly.
Isa 55:11 – Does not actually state irresistibly. Does not define what God pleases His word to accomplish.
Acts 13:48 – Does not actually state that God worked irresistibly. In fact, nothing is even mentioned about WHY they believed. See this same prooftext under Unconditional Election for the context of this event that indicates those who believed were inclined to accept the Gospel.
Acts 18:27 – Does not actually state irresistibly.
Titus 3:5 – Does not actually state irresistibly.
John 11:43-44 – Does not actually state irresistibly or that unbelievers are the subject. It is not even a passage about figurative raising the dead to life in some metaphorical analogy for the state of sinners, it is LITERALLY raising a physically rotting corpse to life! Nowhere is the example of Lazarus used as a comparison for how unbelievers get saved. In fact, see vv15,42,45 which clearly state that what Jesus did was to convince the Jewish witnesses (not unbelieving pagans!) to believe that He is the Messiah. See how ‘dead’ is actually figuratively used under the Eph 2:1-5 entry at Total Depravity.
Col 1:13 – Does not actually state irresistibly.
Psa 3:8 – Does not actually state irresistibly. This one is really stretching it, like they’re out of prooftexts to pad the list. No Christian denies that salvation is of the LORD, the point of contention is HOW God chooses to save us.
2 Cor 4:6 – Does not actually state irresistibly. In fact, scroll back to v4 where the minds of unbelievers need to be blinded… What happened to Total Depravity where they were born already unable to see the light of the Gospel?
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS
If God is does everything related to salvation including making someone believe, then surely nobody who is Elect can ever fall away! God will ensure they persevere to the end, no mere human can thwart God’s will that they be saved.
With this and the other petals together, you might see why I say that the true acrostic for Calvinism is TULIPE – the last letter being Evanescent Grace, to explain those cases of apparent apostasy. What other logical entailment is there for those who formerly professed Christ – or even were Calvinists like Derek Webb, Tyler Vela, Megan Phelps, Edwin Curley – who now have abandoned the faith? If TULIP is true, then God must have tricked them using Evanescent Grace into merely THINKING they had real saving grace.
In any case, the P petal is addressed differently from the others. I affirm that God has promised to supernaturally aid all believers with persevering in the faith. But these assurance passages also need to be balanced out with the warning passages, exhorting believers not to fall away from the faith. There is no ‘losing your salvation’ like one misplaces a set of car keys, but there is the danger of wilfully walking away from Christ and rejecting His terms of salvation.
I summarize this views as “Wants Saved, Always Saved” – if you really want to remain with Christ then He will enable you to succeed to the end, but if you don’t then He won’t force you to remain.
This is instead a collection of debates I’ve witnessed where at least one of the participants is behaving extremely rude, condescending, unreasonable, does something shockingly inappropriate or etc.
So here I present to you for your viewing (dis)pleasure…
—————
Exhibit A: “As though you people have any f^^^ing clue what any of us are talking about”
James Tour vs Dave Farina, where when the latter’s turn came around he immediately went all in on insults, accusations, character assassination, and some swearing for good measure.
As the title quote shows, Farina didn’t limit his disdain to his debate opponent – anyone in the audience who didn’t outright support that Tour is anidiot, was similarly an idiot to Farina.
Substance-wise, Tour seemed to know the science while Farina kept citing merely the titles and abstracts of research papers – which is Tour’s whole point about titles of papers being hyperbolic of what is actually accomplished by the experiments described within.
For just the hot takes:
Exhibit B: “WOW!!!!” [shout reverberates through the room]
This one was so infamous that people who witnessed it still mention it to this day. It’s not much exaggeration on my part when I describe the Determinist side’s opening statements as Severus Snape at his most condescending, followed by Jim Carrey at his most overacting.
Exhibit C: “They complain that just by showing up we’ve lost the debate – they haven’t even bothered to show up!”
This would be a standard theist vs atheist debate, except White & Durbin decided to take a full-blown pure presuppositional apologetics approach… And sadly, they brought along the arrogant condescension which is stereotypical of many of its adherents. They constantly asserted their position rather than argued it out, hence the title quote by the atheist debator.
That White is very proud of his performance and thinks he did an amazing job is evident from the ‘Incredible’ which he appends to the title on his own channel.
Exhibit D: “Scurrilous and gutter ad hominem attacks against me”
Robert Spencer is a very well-read scholar and prolific author on the subject of Islam, including a book questioning the Standard Islamic Narrative about the life (and very existence) of Muhammad.
Adnan Rashid meanwhile obviously had not read the book or done much research on the subject (if any), and resorted to insulting Spencer and repeatedly harping on the one red herring point about challenging Spencer on the difference between Anas ibn Malik vs Malik bin Anas.
(On an aside, Robert Spencer is also the debate opponent that I feel James White got most outplayed by by simple virtue of the weight of evidence on Spencer’s side. See the link at start of this post.)
Exhibit E: “You and your husband have a good day.”
If you take Matt Dillahunty’s side of the story, his debate opponent Andrew Wilson brought personal insults to the table. So, Dillahunty walked out in protest.
If you take Andrew Wilson’s side of the story, everyone already knows Dillahunty’s standard trope of demanding evidence for God, smugly saying he is not convinced regardless, and then claiming victory – so instead, Wilson took the route of granting Dillahunty’s whole thesis (that secular humanism can form ethical foundations) and showing how it cannot even support Dillahunty’s own self-declared goal of human flourishing, by referencing transgenders (one of whom Dillahunty was dating!): “If you don’t call these strange lunatics something they obviously aren’t, they might self-terminate. So in order to avoid that, we need to make everybody on planet Earth – to them this is ‘human flourishing’ – just redefine, pretend it’s true. How laughably absurd this worldview is”.
So with Dillahunty knowing he was outmaneuvered, he feigned indignance (after himself having tossed insults like ‘bumbling God’) and walked out to dodge the rest of the debate.
On an aside, just look how much they’ve shifted the Overton Window. Wilson saying “You and your husband have a good day” is a perfectly polite phrase. But people got offended by it, because society insists we must affirm whatever gender someone self-identifies as – in the case of Dillahunty’s romantic partner, a genetic male who identifies as a woman.
An evolution of my previous musings on Open Molinism.
MINARCHICAL – God is the ultimate and only rightly sovereign authority, but His clear desire is for His imagers to run their own lives and the world using their God-given free will agency (eg. as seen repeatedly in the Bible: giving dominion to humans; letting Adam name the animals; Psalm 115:16 the earth He has given to the children of men). God takes a minimal approach to enacting control over us, as He wants us to FREELY respond with obedience and love (ref: CS Lewis’ world of automata; Alvin Plantinga’s more valuable world). He does still have to interfere at times to prevent total anarchy just as in a Night Watchman state (eg. The Flood; giving the Law). Otherwise, He also intervenes (eg. appearing to Abraham; enacting the Exodus) only as necessary to achieve His direction for world history (eg. the Cross) and aiding the lives of believers because we’ve freely consented to join His society with its associated rules (eg. Choose you this day whom you will serve; Romans 8:28). This is the best and possibly only way to prepare people who will freely never choose sin once we reach the ultimate Voluntary Society, heaven (as in Soulmaking Theodicy).
MOLINISM – God has Middle Knowledge of everything that would happen, and uses it as per the preceding point to directly intervene to achieve the results He knows 100% are guaranteed to obtain by His actions.
In short, God has maximal power & knowledge but uses them minimally with regard to humans.
This proposal differs from standard Molinism mainly by not having a Moment where God selects and sets the Actualized World where all free choices of agents are locked in, rather God interacts in real time to achieve His goals.
I think it reflects quite well what we read in the Bible about how God knows what will happen and interfaces with people and the world.
Free thinking, but not a Free Thinker.
A Christian and a scientist, but not a Christian Scientist.
Believing in a universal church, but not a Catholic.
Trying to be a saint in these latter days, but not a Latter Day Saint.
A witness for Jehovah, but not a Jehovah's Witness.
Sumitted to God, but not a Muslim.
Seeking knowledge, but not a Gnostic.
Rational in thinking, but not a Rationalist.
Upholding humanity, but not a Humanist.
A supporter of liberation, but not a Liberal.
A supporter of democracy, but not a Democrat.
Acknowledging the importance of social values, but not a Socialist.
Seeking and valuing truth, but not a Truther.
THE SCOTTTCAST 